

THE ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION RECORD 



To advance the purpose for which the. Farm Bureau was organized 



namely, to promote, protect and represent the business, economic, political JANUARY 1937 



and educational interests of the farmers of Illinois and the nation, and 



to develop agriculture. VOL. 15 Nu* 1 



Published monthly by the Illinois Agricultural Asso- 

 ciation at 1501 West Washington Road. Mendota. III. 

 Editorial Offices, 608 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, 111. 

 Entered as second class matter at post office, Mendota, 

 Illinois, September 11, 1936. Acceptance for mailing 

 at special rate of postage provided in Section 412. Act of 

 Feb. 28, 1925, auth*ized Oct. 27,' 1935. Address all 

 communications for publication to Editorittl Offices, Illinois 

 Agricultural Association RECORD, 608 So. Dearborn St., 

 Chicago. The individual membership fee of the Illinois 

 Agricultural Association is five dollars a year. The fee 

 includes payment of fifty cents for subscription to the 

 Illinois Agricultural Association RECORD. Postmaster; 

 Send notices on Form 3578 and undeliverable copies 

 returned under Form 3579 to editorial offices, 608 S. 

 Dearborn St., Chicago, III. 



Editor and Advertising Director. E. G. Thiem ; Assistant 

 Director and Ass't. Editor. Lawrence A. Potter; Assistant 

 Editor. Howard C. Hill. 



Illinois Agriciiltural Association 



Greatest State Farm Organization in America 



OFFICERS 



President, Earl C. Smith Detroit 



Vice-President, Talmage DeFrees Smithboro 



Corporate Secretary, PAUL E. Mathias Chicago 



Field Secretary. Geo. E. Metzger..... Chicago 



Treasurer, R. A. COWLES ■Bloomington 



A^s't Treasurer, A. R. Wright Varna 



BOARD OF DIRECTORS 



(By Congressional District) 



1st to 11th E. Harris, Grayslake 



12th E. E. Houghtby, Shabbona 



13th C. E. Bamborough, Polo 



1 4th Otto Steffey, Stronghurst 



1 5th M. Ray Ihrig, Golden 



1 6th Albert Hayes, Chillicothe 



17th E. D. Lawrence, Bloomington 



18th Herman W. Danforth, Danforth 



19th Eugene Curtis, Champaign 



20th K. T. Smith, Greenfield 



2Ist Samuel Sorrells, Raymond 



22nd A. O. Eckert, Belleville 



23rd Chester McCord, Newton 



24th „ Charles Marshall, Belknap 



25th R. B. Endicott, Villa Ridge 



DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS 



Comptroller R. G. Ely 



Dairy Marketing Wilfred Shaw 



Finance R. A. Cowles 



Fruit and Vegetable Marketing H. W. Day 



Legal and General Counsel Donald Kirkpatrick 



Live Stock Marketing Ray E. Miller 



Office C, E. Johnston 



Organization G. E. Metzger 



Produce Marketing F. A. Gougler 



Publicity George Thiem 



Safety C, M. Seagraves 



Taxation and Statistics J. C. Watson 



Transportation-Claims Division G. W. Baxter 



Young Peoples Activities Frank Gingrich 



ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS 



Country Life Insurance Co L. A. Williams, Mgr. 



Farmers' Mutual Reinsurance Co. ..J. H. Kelker, Mgr. 



Illinois Agr, Auditing Ass'n F. E. Ringham, Mgr. 



Illinois Agr. Mutual Ins. Co.. .A. E. Richardson, Mgr. 



Illinois Agr. Service Co Donald Kirkpatrick, Secy. 



111. Farm Bureau Serum Ass'n Ray E, Miller, Mgr. 



Illinois Farm Supply Co L, R. Marchant, Mgr. 



Illinois Fruit Growers' Exchange.. ..H. W. Day, Mgr. 



Illinois Grain Corporation. .Harrison Fahrnkopf, Mgr. 



Illinois Livestock Marketing Ass'n.-.Ray Miller, Mgr. 



Illinois Milk Producers' Ass'n Wilfred Shaw, Mgr. 



Illinois Producers' Creameries. ..F, A. Gougler, Mgr. 



J. B. Countiss, Sales Mgr. 



GEORGE THIEM, Editor 



y^N A recent ciecision involv- 

 l/l ing the so-called fair trade 

 \^_J statutes of Illinois and Cali- 

 fornia, the United States Supreme 

 Court unanimously upheld their con- 

 stitutionality. These acts make it 

 illegal for a retailer to cut prices be- 

 low those fixed by the producer or 

 manufacturer of a branded com- 

 modity. 



The decision essentially puts the 

 stamp of approval of the highest 

 court of the land on price-fixing of 

 branded goods. The reason given is 

 that the price set by the producer is 

 intimately related to the quality and 

 individuality of the advertised prod- 

 uct, hence is part of the property 

 right vested in the maker. 



The court was careful to point out 

 that its decision did not approve 

 price fixing as a general thing. How- 

 ever the court may reason, the effect 

 of the decision will be to force farm- 

 ers and others to pay more for the 

 things they buy since most goods 

 sold on the market today is trade- 

 marked. 



There are at least two possible 

 courses of action for farmers in main- 

 taining profitable prices for farm 

 products. First is to keep produc- 

 tion in line with market demands at 

 fair price levels. The second is to 

 organize thoroughly into commodity 

 groups, adopt and advertise a trade- 

 mark or brand name for produce of 

 uniform high quality and so build up 

 a demand at prices fixed by the 

 producers. 



The first course is more practicable 

 to get results for the many than the 

 second. It is the one supported by 

 organized farmers generally; first, in 

 the Triple A programs and now un- 

 der the Soil Conser\ation Act. The 

 second is practicable only for pro- 

 ducers of specialty farm commod- 

 ities like oranges, melons, vegetables, 

 seeds, etc. It would be difficult, if 

 not impossible, to operate in the 

 case of corn, hogs and cattle. 



But regardless of this or other Su- 

 preme Court decisions, price main- 

 tenance is well established in the 

 American economic system. The 

 corporation with its highly concen- 

 trated production makes price fixing 

 possible. Farmers, through organ- 

 ization, must work for its equivalent. 

 For regardless of , the good intentions 

 of industrialists who advocate more 

 production at lower prices, in prac- 

 tice they will stick to limited produc- 

 tion at a price that returns a profit. 



Just ahead, Jan. 27-28-29 in Chi- 

 cago, looms the 22nd annual I. A. A. 

 meeting. How many recall the last 

 annual meeting in Chicago in 1923.' 

 At that time farm prices were lower 

 than they are today. Protected by 

 the tariff, the prices of non-agricul- 

 tural goods were high in relation to 

 farm prices. Farmers were becom- 

 ing conscious of the surplus problem. 

 They hadn't yet hit upon a solution. 

 Vainly we were struggling with co- 

 operative marketing as a solution to 

 the disparity between farm and non- 

 agricultural prices. Th6 next year 

 the initial McNary Haugen bill came 

 into being. 



Farrners have come far — so has 

 the country — in understanding the 

 farm problem since that time. A lot 

 of history has been made. Much has 

 been accomplished. The job of 

 evolving a long time program for 

 agriculture is not an easy one. We 

 are still in the midst of it. And this 

 year again that problem will be up- 

 permost in the minds of those who 

 meet in Chicago the end of the 

 month. — E.G.T. 



JANUARY, 1937 



